Grantland Article on Last Night's Michigan v. Northwestern
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/13932/the-ugly-win…
First part of the article sets the stage (a little overdramatic for me) and even quotes Dylan from UMHoops.com. Second half outlines what happened in the game.
Overall a good read and its nice to see Michigan Basketball getting some national attention as we hopefully move forward towards being a perrenial contender.
January 12th, 2012 at 1:35 PM ^
But can we just ban Grantland from posting on college sports? They either know nothing about the sport, or are all Mitch Albom wanna be's, or in the worst case, like this, both.
I almost stopped reading in the first paragraph when Michigan is a wasteland because he was stupid enough to park across the train tracks rather than passing by a golf course or something. What construction making the Stadium more state of the art and prettier has to do with ugliness, I have no idea. Does anyone really say anything like "facade of lancet arches"? The "...it's already started to rain" part sounded like an emo 14 year old girl was writing it.
And the closet Michigan basketball came to ":beautiful basketball" (whatever that is) was the Fab Five? Glad because he wasn't around for the 30 years of successful basketball before that he can make statements like that.
(And did he really count the times the Victors was playing?)
Again, no knock against the OP, perfectly reasonable to point out the good (and bad, depending on your view) things said about the program, and the pub it's getting. But the more people point out that Grantland isn't just Simmon's new Page2, uh, page, and that there are other "writers", the more I wonder...why? Where did he find all these guys?
January 12th, 2012 at 1:37 PM ^
Isn't their Big Ten Basketball guy an Ohio homer? Wouldn't he go out of his way to throw in the digs?
January 12th, 2012 at 2:05 PM ^
Mark Titus (writer/founder of Club Trillion) and former walk-on at Ohio State writes most of their college basketball stuff. The article in question was written by a different guy.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:28 PM ^
Thanks for the clarification.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:29 PM ^
<No idea how this double posted, sorry>
January 12th, 2012 at 1:56 PM ^
On the "beautiful basketball" point, I don't think Glen Rice and Cazzie Russell ran around kicking guys in the nuts so they could sneak a cheap lay-up.
He also fails to mention/understand that part of the fan apathy comes from the fact that basketball shares a season with arguably the school's 2nd most popular sport (hockey). Not everybody is going to have the energy or the budget (especially among students) to attend every sporting event on campus. When the choice is between a perennial national contender and a team that hasn't made the NCAA tournament in a decade, a lot of people are going to skip basketball games and attend hockey games instead.
And he totally misses why last night's win was actually a big deal. After Saturday's game @Iowa, the schedule gets a whole lot tougher. Our remaining home games are against MSU, OSU, Indiana, Purdue and Illinois. We only play three games against the bottom of the Big Ten and all of them are on the road (PSU, Nebraska, Northwestern). Wins are not going to be easy. An extra loss would have given us a real uphill battle to make the tournament, much less earn a top seed. Now a win against Iowa gives us a lot of wiggle room down the stretch. If things go well and we do end up competing for the conference title or a high tourney seed, avoiding a home loss to a less than stellar opponent may make all the difference in the world as well.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:24 PM ^
That first paragraph would make an awesome motion gif.
I think basketball has always been a second class sport at Michigan It's a football school. That's the way it works. The Fab Five's last home game all together ever you could get groups of seats the day of the game. They were up there, but they were available. And the apathy is in a great deal sucking while other programs succeeded, but as much as not being good, there was a kind of shame associated with the sanctions on the program that a. other programs don't feel so bad about, so they don't really tarnish a program like here and b. we kinda self imposed more punishment by hiring crappy coaches so we couldn't turn around the good feelings about the program. Fans are front runners. If we actually win something, people will start showing up. But even then, we're not selling out every game. Because when he had the most famous team in college basketball, we couldn't do it.
Also, I actually wanted to go to this game, with the trophy and football tie in's and all...but did anyone else find a Wednesday game scheduled at 6:30, just a weird, hard to manage time? I barely got to see it on tv, no more make it over there. That game wasn't the best judgment.
Enough so that I couldn't also be on the open thread...but you're right, last night's game was huge. Have to protect home court against everyone but the elite, and steal a couple of road ones if you want to progress. Good teams find a way to win that game. In some past years, we wouldn't have.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:24 PM ^
There is no excuse for fan apathy for a sport as big as men's basketball. No point in trying to invent one.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:39 PM ^
He also fails to mention/understand that part of the fan apathy comes from the fact that basketball shares a season with arguably the school's 2nd most popular sport (hockey).
I'm not sure how a big a factor this is. Did basketball draw better in the 1970s, when Michigan hockey was lousy? I don't think the two really compete for fans. Football and basketball are the two mainstream sports. Support for one often is inversely correlated with support for the others. We see this not just at Michigan but at PSU, many SEC schools, and in reverse (with basketball on top) at many ACC schools, plus Kentucky, UCLA and Arizona.
Hockey fandom is a subculture within the larger university community. It's on a different wavelength.
January 12th, 2012 at 7:12 PM ^
I think there are plenty of people who are big fans of both Michigan basketball and Michigan hockey. Going to both requires sacrificing a lot of dough and even more time (some times 3-4 nights a week to attend every game). As a student, it was an either/or proposition for me and I went back and forth between the two (and use the money saved to buy a 12 pack and watch the game on TV). The need to choose is probably even more prevalent for fans who actually have to get up in the morning and/or have to drive in from out of town.
If just 15% of the folks at Yost would otherwise go to a basketball game if hockey wasn't an option, you're talking about an extra 1,000 butts in the seats. To me that seems like a believable number and one that would make a big difference. Add in how much smaller Ann Arbor is in comparison to places like Columbus, Minneapolis, and even Madison and a lot of the supposed apathy just amounts to a lack of available pocket books and behinds for the number of seats available across all sports.
January 12th, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^
I think you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't read the whole thing. Yes, the first part of the article is somewhat off-base, but that's the kind of thing that happens when an outside writer who doesn't have in-depth knowledge of Michigan writes something like this.
The write-up of the game itself is really well-done and goes in much more depth than a typical post-game write up. There's a whole discussion of the scout team's preparation for Northwestern that I don't think I'd read about anywhere else. And it somehow makes Zack Novak look even better than I thought he was.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:25 PM ^
But the flowery crap around it and the insinuations sink what could have been a nice write up, and tries too hard to be "column material" than indepth analysis.
January 12th, 2012 at 1:37 PM ^
Here is a fairly emo take on the game from the first site that popped up when i searched "Northwestern Basketball Blog":
http://welsh-ryanramblings.blogspot.com/2012/01/well-thats-all-folks.html
January 12th, 2012 at 1:47 PM ^
Weinreb lost favor with me after the Sugar Bowl article, but his stuff on the Penn State scandal was some really good writing. Namely the "Growing Up Penn State" article. Not everything they post is great, but I think Grantland has done some really good college pieces.
January 12th, 2012 at 1:48 PM ^
did i miss the part where crisler was relocated to some industrial wasteland?
January 12th, 2012 at 1:59 PM ^
Well, it is in the middle of a giant construction zone, from the Stadium bridge construction all the way up to the fact that you can't get in or out of the building, for the most part, without taking a hike around a maze of chain-link fence. It isn't nearly as dramatic as this guy makes it sound, but it is rather noticeable.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:05 PM ^
Definitely read that as, "maize chain-link fence" initially, which would just be awesome. Completely unnecessary and expensive, but still awesome.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:20 PM ^
construction being a traditional sign of decay
not of, you know, building stuff
January 12th, 2012 at 1:48 PM ^
Trying to draw the inference that because construction being done around Crisler (yes, he counted the number of backhoes) Ann Arbor is a poor dilapidated Midwest city is idiotic and counterintuitive. Add that with the terrible melodramatic writing and this article personifies the reason I don't visit Grantland anymore.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:01 PM ^
Anyone who remodels their kitchen or bathroom is basically the equivalent of a dirty hobo. I can see the logic there.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:41 PM ^
I won't go as far as not visiting Grantland (the stuff Klosterman writes for them has been first rate and I quite like Bill Barnwell and Simmons on the NBA) but the "Rust Belt" premise here was a really dumb framing, both from a narrative and a sociological perspective.
January 12th, 2012 at 1:57 PM ^
When I first saw Grantland I was excited. I thought that Bill Simmons getting a more expanded website was great. But as time has gone on more and more random writers are showing up writing overly dramatic broad pieces, filled with half-truths, agendas, and misconceptions. Now the only sports stuff I read is stuff by Bill Simmons himself (and the Hollywood stuff since I don't have anything else to do)
Overall just a bad article
January 12th, 2012 at 2:02 PM ^
January 12th, 2012 at 2:03 PM ^
Umm, I thought it was a pretty good article, that was complimentary of our program and players, and had an amazing tidbit about Novak's leadership that I otherwise wouldn't have known about (urging Beilein to give accolades to the scout team after the game). I also appreciate a mainstream national outlet giving such focus to a midseason game that most non-Michigan or Northwestern fans couldn't care less about. It was a nice recognition that even these seemingly run of the mill games have great meaning and drama to the participants and fans.
But whatever. It's cool to dislike ESPN and Grantland, so the article sucked. Simmons hasn't been good for years, neither has Saturday Night Live, etc. etc. rabble rabble.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:34 PM ^
I think he's become a bit lazy, and self-absorbed with his success that he writes more for himself than his readers anymore. He's become an NBA writer who writes on other stuff sometimes. I mean, no one needed or cared about 12 Days of the NBA or whatever...I doubt David Stern's kids would read it. If that's what he wants to be, that's cool, there are writers about just one sport. They just don't usually get their own webpage from ESPN. His basketball blog would be huge though, I'm sure.
And as for the rest...if you've got a list of hidden gems by OTHER writers on Grantland, I'll take your recommendations. I trust your taste. But so far every reference/link/surfing I see elsewhere on the sight seem like a testing ground for wannabee's, rather than living up to the site's name and plucking the best out there to write for them. It's like an anthology (tv show, comic book, whatever) where all the writers and artists are newcomers who are getting try outs on stories of no consequence. The next great talent may be found, but you're wading through a lot of junk to get there.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:52 PM ^
I don't read anything on grantland religiously, but the media/entertainment stuff is usually pretty enjoyable, especially Hollywood Prospectus.
And any wrestling column written by the Masked Man (formerly of deadspin) is absolutely tremendous, even though I haven't watched wrestling in over 15 years.
January 12th, 2012 at 10:03 PM ^
Yes! The Masked Man is fantastic. I also love all of the annotated greatest sports articles of all time. Yes some of the articles miss the mark occasionally, but I seriously love that site a lot. I rarely read an article and am disappointed in the time commitment.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:55 PM ^
The 12 Days of the NBA was awesome, though. It showed a writer's deep infatuation and almost maniacal investment in his subject. It's what is good about the democraticization of sportswriting created by the internet. It's when he writes on most other stuff that he falls into the problems with that same trend. He falls back on the same tropes he's used again and again (90210, Karate Kid, etc, etc). It's his equivalent of putting up cat gifs. When he's writing about the NBA, he doesn't use his boring fallback memes, because he actually cares about his subject.
As for the other writers, Klosterman's great (his piece on the Metallica/Lou Reed collaboration might be one of the best things ever written about the merits and perils of music in the age of the internet), and I actually read Katie Baker, even though I don't care at all about hockey. The guy who writes the wrestling stuff is entertaining, though I'm getting tired his "lit crit of wrestling" shtick. Weinreb's initial Penn State stuff was really good, I find him and Bradon hit and miss, though. The pro football stuff is less fun to read, as it's more focused on analysis than prose, but both Brown and Barnwell are generally good.
Put it this way, if you care about writing and you care about sports, it's a site worth reading.
January 12th, 2012 at 3:19 PM ^
While it might have made a great psychological study, the 12 days seemed incredibly self-indulgent as writing. Even most people who like the NBA didn't care about his obsessive mood swings and play by play of the situation, because the NBA doesn't start to most people till at least Christmas, and really, after football is done. So not much was lost. You could say a writer writes for the sake of "art", but I think it's a stretch to say what they're doing on Grantland is art, and not for public consumption.
And I'll take both of your words that some of that other stuff is well written. I probably haven't come across it because I couldn't see myself reading about wrestling (nothing against anyone viewing it), and one of the only things that would interest me less is the music industry. Doesn't mean it's not well done stuff though just because it's not to my tastes.
I read the first Penn State thing...and it was heartfelt, and again, maybe a good view on the mixed feelings of a Penn Stater, but it didn't really strike me as breaking new ground. It's nothing that I couldn't see (or haven't seen) Brian write better pieces on hard times or conflicted feelings (though nothing to this low level, of course). Everything doesn't suck. But it almost never lives up to it's pompous name as an accumulation of great writers in one spot.
January 12th, 2012 at 3:53 PM ^
For me, it's impossible for good writing to not be self-indulgent.
What I value as a reader of prose or fiction is the entry into another self: his/her interest, passion, ideas, etc. It's certainly a lot of what draws me here. I find objectivity or ironic distance, all efforts to detach the self from investment in what's being written, much more alienating than interesting self-indulgence. YMMV
January 12th, 2012 at 3:13 PM ^
I was with you until "Saturday Night Live".
January 12th, 2012 at 2:11 PM ^
near the beginning of the article makes you want to stop reading and is unfair to say the least, he does make a point about the general area leading down to Crisler. The railroad easement from where Fingerle Lumber is all the way down to the transportation dept. garages IS pretty nasty and "Rust Beltish". Although U-M has done their best to tuck away some of their boiler room functions in this area, it is noticeable when walking to the game from the central campus. So, I can at least see how a non-U-M person can think that.
And this leads to another point why basketball games aren't always as well attended by students. Being in the winter when weather is often nasty, it's a long hike down to Crisler from the campus (unless you take one of the buses or get a ride from someone). If the team is anything less than good and exciting to watch, many times students will just say "the heck with it". It was like that when I was a student back in the late 70's/early 80's when the team was bad and has been that way for much of the 2000's too.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:31 PM ^
I was intrigued by Grantland mostly because Klosterman was trumpted as the de facto second-in-command and was popping out articles with the same frequency Simmons was when it started. Then The Visible Man (Klosterman's new novel) came out and Klosterman basically has written one article per month since then. Sort of seems like he used the site as free promotion for his book, and the site used him for some credibility. Oh well.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:02 PM ^
or he's on a book tour, which basically leaves no time to write.
January 12th, 2012 at 2:45 PM ^
"GET THE FUCK OFF MY COURT"
has been replaced by
"LET'S FUCKING GO"
January 12th, 2012 at 2:59 PM ^
I thought it was an excellent article and I got a vivid picture of what the game was like (I was at work and had to follow online). Yes, the first paragraph comes off as a bit hokey and misguided, but the game wrap was excellently done and much better than the stuff the AP or ESPN cranks out on a daily basis.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:08 PM ^
It's a good article. From some of the above comments, I expected some kind of a hatchet job on the city of Ann Arbor. I didn't draw that conclusion at all.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:19 PM ^
The opening of the article was poor, but overall I thought is was well done. I though he was spot on about the analysis of the game. I enjoyed it.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:53 PM ^
Mostly liked the Article. I think the writer used "ugly" as a hook or theme to carry through the entire column. He started with "ugly gray day, ugly midwest," and transitioned into "ugly game, winning ugly."
Some people really hate that kind of writing, others love it. I'm ok either way. I myself did like the article. He gave a great feel of what it is like to walk from State Street to Crisler on a grey, dreary, snowless Winter day. It brought me back to making that same walk when I was still in Ann Arbor and had a pair of season tickets.
I don't think that construction = decay, and that ugly day = ugly team, etc., etc. However, I have noticed that some people seem awfully defensive about Ann Arbor and Michigan. I strongly suspect that between the grey, dreariness, the chainlink fence, the excavated dirt, the signage, etc., that it wasn't a beautiful sight. Ugly, in a word. That's ok, because we know where things are going with the program and with the physical infrastructure. Sometimes, though, you need to be able to take some criticism less than personally. As in this article.
The reason I personally like the article is because it paints a picture of what it is like to be there. What some of you call flowery, I find descriptive, even beautiful and touching. Scout team standing on chairs to be praised? What a great picture, which I haven't heard of anywhere else.
Describing how Smotrycz and Novak defended Shurna in the 2nd half brought back memories of hard fought basketball games in the CCRB as a student. I love this kind of detail.
Let me close with a different kind of word picture. When some people have sex, they just want to do the deed: wham, bam, thank you ma'am. Others enjoy taking their time, and everything surrounded can be part of a beautiful experience. I suppose there is a place for both. But I personally don't mind taking my time and enjoying the journey, instead of just getting to the point.
January 12th, 2012 at 4:59 PM ^
I finally read this after a lot of negative reviews from here. I was going into the article expecting the worse, perhaps already persuaded by the comments on this blog, but came away thinking it was a pretty good write-up. Not bad at all. Good summation of the game, spot on IMO, especially describing how coach Carmody slowed us in the middle of the second half with his timeouts. I'm not sure if that was talked about in the actual Game Thread, but that was some interesting coaching and strategy and it definitely worked for NW.
January 12th, 2012 at 5:26 PM ^
Some people are overly defensive.
January 12th, 2012 at 5:58 PM ^
I have a really hard time reading stuff on Grantland after the Weinreb suck-piece.